1. Take two extremely complex models with outdated underlying data
2. Combine the two models as the basis for further analysis, even though the creators of the models expressly warned that doing so would lead to erroneous conclusions.
3. Embed the Frankenstein analysis in influential public policy documents.
4. Pressure media organs to report upon Frankenstein analysis in order to mold public opinion.
Presumably, each scenario derives from some complex assignment of yearly energy production by different sources among the various sectors of the economies of the nations of the world, and the total emissions from all these sources is converted to a temperature gain. On can then draw graphs of emissions vs. years out to 2100 and temperature gain vs. years out to 2100 for each scenario. The IPCC posted these crucial, central graphs as tiny 2-inch square plots. Since the assumptions that go into a scenario involve an almost infinite guesses regarding the world economy, the actions of hundreds of nations, the evolution of energy technology, and the competition or possibly even outright wars between nations, it seems incredible to me that any credence should be given to any of them.
What a scenario says to me is that if I draw any arbitrary curve of world emissions per year out to 2100, then I can produce a plot of temperature gain vs. year out to 2100. The conversion from cumulative emissions to temperature gain is simple and linear. I gave it in previous postings.
My view is we should throw out all the SSP scenarios. They are all the product of a lot of work built on imagination of the future.
Instead, we can draw a family of arbitrary curves of emissions per year out to 2100 and for each such curve, show the accompanying plot of a family of temperature gains vs. year out to 2100. Then we have a family of curves for emissions and the related family of curves for temperature gain. As we move forward in the 21st century we can note where we are by counting emissions. The nations of the world are challenged to move downward on these charts. How well they do is measured by where the data point of current cumulative emissions (and estimated temperature therefrom) stack up against these curves.
Question, what specifically have governments actually done (other than decommission nuclear power plants) to mitigate warming.
It seems that if we had not hyperventilated about climate change, and just continued to expand and improve our economy and those of the developing world we'd be where we are today.
CO2 continues to increase and we'll still hit the "natural" global warming that has been going on since the 1860s. What am I missing ?
Apr 26, 2023·edited Apr 26, 2023Liked by Roger Pielke Jr.
In order to put a stop to using erroneous models, there has to be an understanding of the motivations as to why it’s being done in the first place. For politicians, such studies provide a pretext to give themselves more power and control over the economy in the name of fighting climate change. In fact, the political left has long wanted increased centralization of power in the Federal government, and climate change is probably the best tool they’ve found so far to advance that cause. The Malthusianism of the 1970s didn’t stand the test of time.
The academicians primarily follow the funding. There is probably not much political interest in funding studies that indicate that climate change is not an immediate existential threat requiring major government interventions.
Here’s the thing... most of these papers basically say “we ran these models, made some assumptions, and the future looks bad.” Maybe we should put a moratorium on the use of government funds to find the same studies and over? (E.g. impact of climate change on hair styles in 2100.” We could take that funding and put more into technologies for various kinds of decarbonization. However, that would switch the funding to other disciplines.. If we followed “the science” the Nature paper said that ginning up more angst is not helpful to policy, and it’s probably bad for mental health. So I’m backing up from “which scenario” to “do these kinds of studies have utility?”
Super. Like water over rock over eons. The scenarios that are misused with purpose under the plausible deniability of scientific complexity and the vanishingly small - and shrinking by decade - likelihood of occurrence won’t withstand the water being applied by many like you.
And that water volume and pressure are increasing. By sunlight and by data. Finally.
When people run with false models the facts will eventually come out even ironically from their own scientists.
RCP8.5 has had such a slaughtering they know it is no longer credible and have to ditch or change it. However they want to continue the doom and gloom scenario so they hook 8.5 to 4.5 hoping things doom and gloom will still be credible.
But because it is a political story line not a scientific one they are soon exposed by scholars like yourself.
The UN is as aa result left as a shambles with more to come as the news comes out more and more.
These are the death throes of the global warming scam now exposed as a political project by their own and other scientists and scholars.
I think that you have made it clear that the main “scientific “ purpose of the scenarios is to provide input to the models in order to project potential future conditions. Problems with the models are well known and model results are easily politicized.
Isn’t the real problem one of development of energy (not climate) policies that assure maximum human well being while not destroying our environment?
It seems to me that the current mindset around scenarios and climate models is not a productive approach.
Just another example of gaslighting with erroneous models. Who is guilty of misinformation the left or the right? Insane, some smart reporter could win a Pulitzer by just dropping the dime on this stuff.
Dr. Pielke. I am commenting on this older post because it is relevant to my comment. Have you seen the paper regarding RCP8.5 at this link and the associated commentary and response? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32747549/ This paper was referenced in the following new paper on maintain snowfall decline in California mountains to justify use of RCP8.5. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00382-023-06776-w.pdf?pdf=button
Suggestion for Roger: Why don't you hook up somehow with Shellenberger and Newhouse at their "PUBLIC" substack?
Here's a recipe for mass misinformation:
1. Take two extremely complex models with outdated underlying data
2. Combine the two models as the basis for further analysis, even though the creators of the models expressly warned that doing so would lead to erroneous conclusions.
3. Embed the Frankenstein analysis in influential public policy documents.
4. Pressure media organs to report upon Frankenstein analysis in order to mold public opinion.
5. Lather, rinse, repeat.
“Scenario misuse is endemic in climate research. There are understandable reasons why this has occurred. ”
No there aren’t. It has always been fraud.
The walls continue to fracture, thanks to Musk. Watching what they are trying to do to him, anyone is a target.
https://public.substack.com/p/now-theyre-trying-censor-your-text
I will do my part in getting your message out there. Your readers can share on Twitter or other places. All we can do is keep trying.
Presumably, each scenario derives from some complex assignment of yearly energy production by different sources among the various sectors of the economies of the nations of the world, and the total emissions from all these sources is converted to a temperature gain. On can then draw graphs of emissions vs. years out to 2100 and temperature gain vs. years out to 2100 for each scenario. The IPCC posted these crucial, central graphs as tiny 2-inch square plots. Since the assumptions that go into a scenario involve an almost infinite guesses regarding the world economy, the actions of hundreds of nations, the evolution of energy technology, and the competition or possibly even outright wars between nations, it seems incredible to me that any credence should be given to any of them.
What a scenario says to me is that if I draw any arbitrary curve of world emissions per year out to 2100, then I can produce a plot of temperature gain vs. year out to 2100. The conversion from cumulative emissions to temperature gain is simple and linear. I gave it in previous postings.
My view is we should throw out all the SSP scenarios. They are all the product of a lot of work built on imagination of the future.
Instead, we can draw a family of arbitrary curves of emissions per year out to 2100 and for each such curve, show the accompanying plot of a family of temperature gains vs. year out to 2100. Then we have a family of curves for emissions and the related family of curves for temperature gain. As we move forward in the 21st century we can note where we are by counting emissions. The nations of the world are challenged to move downward on these charts. How well they do is measured by where the data point of current cumulative emissions (and estimated temperature therefrom) stack up against these curves.
1.5 was not a realistic target right? Is 2.0? What do you think we should be tracking toward?
Question, what specifically have governments actually done (other than decommission nuclear power plants) to mitigate warming.
It seems that if we had not hyperventilated about climate change, and just continued to expand and improve our economy and those of the developing world we'd be where we are today.
CO2 continues to increase and we'll still hit the "natural" global warming that has been going on since the 1860s. What am I missing ?
In order to put a stop to using erroneous models, there has to be an understanding of the motivations as to why it’s being done in the first place. For politicians, such studies provide a pretext to give themselves more power and control over the economy in the name of fighting climate change. In fact, the political left has long wanted increased centralization of power in the Federal government, and climate change is probably the best tool they’ve found so far to advance that cause. The Malthusianism of the 1970s didn’t stand the test of time.
The academicians primarily follow the funding. There is probably not much political interest in funding studies that indicate that climate change is not an immediate existential threat requiring major government interventions.
Here’s the thing... most of these papers basically say “we ran these models, made some assumptions, and the future looks bad.” Maybe we should put a moratorium on the use of government funds to find the same studies and over? (E.g. impact of climate change on hair styles in 2100.” We could take that funding and put more into technologies for various kinds of decarbonization. However, that would switch the funding to other disciplines.. If we followed “the science” the Nature paper said that ginning up more angst is not helpful to policy, and it’s probably bad for mental health. So I’m backing up from “which scenario” to “do these kinds of studies have utility?”
Super. Like water over rock over eons. The scenarios that are misused with purpose under the plausible deniability of scientific complexity and the vanishingly small - and shrinking by decade - likelihood of occurrence won’t withstand the water being applied by many like you.
And that water volume and pressure are increasing. By sunlight and by data. Finally.
Roger: If we are tracking well below 4.5, and 4.5 equates to 2.9C warming by 2100 why do we need to do any more?
When people run with false models the facts will eventually come out even ironically from their own scientists.
RCP8.5 has had such a slaughtering they know it is no longer credible and have to ditch or change it. However they want to continue the doom and gloom scenario so they hook 8.5 to 4.5 hoping things doom and gloom will still be credible.
But because it is a political story line not a scientific one they are soon exposed by scholars like yourself.
The UN is as aa result left as a shambles with more to come as the news comes out more and more.
These are the death throes of the global warming scam now exposed as a political project by their own and other scientists and scholars.
I think that you have made it clear that the main “scientific “ purpose of the scenarios is to provide input to the models in order to project potential future conditions. Problems with the models are well known and model results are easily politicized.
Isn’t the real problem one of development of energy (not climate) policies that assure maximum human well being while not destroying our environment?
It seems to me that the current mindset around scenarios and climate models is not a productive approach.
Just another example of gaslighting with erroneous models. Who is guilty of misinformation the left or the right? Insane, some smart reporter could win a Pulitzer by just dropping the dime on this stuff.